Why Diablo Canyon is Safe from Earthquake and Tsunami

Every once in a while NEI's media team has to call out a journalist for egregiously unbalanced coverage. Today is one such day. Jenner Deal, “reporting” for Business Insider, produced a wildly unbalanced video, replete with anti-nuclear activist views and horror-film ominous sound, in labeling the Diablo Canyon Power Plant a "Fukushima waiting to happen."

The report wasn't entirely erroneous -- Deal got Diablo's acreage, location, and surrounding population correct. But thereafter her reporting lapses badly into anti-nuclear activism. "Many fear that a single earthquake could cause a repeat of the 2011 Fukushima disaster," Deal claims in the intro to her video. Actually, very few outside of California's anti-nuclear activist community do; scores of independent geologists and seismologists who've studied the site do not. Nor does the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has the authority to shut down Diablo Canyon or any other nuclear power plant in the U.S. if it isn't operating safely.

In attempting to link Diablo Canyon with Fukushima Daichii, Deal omits a number of important distinctions. Most basically, she fails to thoroughly examine that seismic and tsunami safety are continually evaluated at Diablo Canyon. In March 2015, two new studies confirmed that the plant’s design can withstand severe natural events, including earthquakes and tsunamis. For example, a new tsunami study predicts that the largest wave that could impact the plant site is about 30 feet high. Diablo Canyon sits 85 feet above sea level. Compare that to Daichii, which resided just 20 feet above ocean level. And Diablo, like all of the U.S. fleet, has notable backup safety systems in place that Japanese plants in 2011 did not.

It's also worth noting that as Japan begins to restart its commercial nuclear operations this fall that industry there incorporated many of the best safety practices long in place at nuclear plants in the U.S. Nuclear energy facilities here were designed and built with extra safety margin, in part to be able to withstand an earthquake even beyond the strongest ever recorded in the region for each site. And over the past decades, each time new seismic information became available, plant operators have confirmed, and in many cases, enhanced the facility’s seismic protection.

Diablo Canyon, located along California’s Central Coast, is understandably a subject of interest when it comes to seismic and tsunami safety. However, the plant is unique in that it maintains a Long Term Seismic Program, staffed with professional scientists, who continually partner with independent experts to ensure the plant is safe. As a result of this program, the seismic region around the plant is perhaps the most studied and understood seismic region in the country.

Between 2010-2013, PG&E conducted advanced seismic research by land and sea to further document the seismic characteristics of the fault zones in the region surrounding Diablo Canyon. The final report, completed in 2014, has given scientists and regulators an unprecedented view into the earth’s crust that significantly increases our understanding of the seismic characteristics near Diablo Canyon. Most importantly, it confirmed that the plant remains seismically safe.

It’s unfortunate that Deal either glossed over these facts or decided not to pursue them altogether. Her final product invites the interpretation that the fix was in for a hit piece from the beginning.

For a truly informative treatment of how Diablo Canyon was designed to withstand natural events, check out this video:

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog